[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Greg Paul is right (again); or "Archie's not a birdy"



GSP1954 wrote:

> Let us not forget that in 2005 in that other Science journal Mayr, Pohl and
> Peters also found Archy to be basal to deinonychosaurs.

Well, it is hard to say what they actually found because their
analysis did not include any derived birds (not even
enantiornithines), but either they found _confuciusornithids_ to be
basal dromaeosaurids and _Archaeopteryx_ in its usual position*, or
they found _Archaeopteryx_ outside Eumaniraptora**. In either case,
their topology is different from that of Xu et al. (2011). Mayr et al.
(probably) placed deinonychosaurs and derived birds in a sister taxon
relationship to the exclusion of _Archaeopteryx_, Xu et al. (2011)
place deinonychosaurs and _Archaeopteryx_ in a sister taxon
relationship to the exclusion of derived birds.

*Then the complete topology would look like this: ((_Archaeopteryx_,
derived birds), (Troodontidae, (Dromaeosauridae,
Confuciusornithidae)))

**Then it would be: (_Archaeopteryx_, (Troodontidae, (Dromaeosauridae,
(Confuciusornithidae, derived birds))))

-- 
David Černý